I think that some films should not have sequels... I will definitely go to see the new one but I don't rather expect anything from it. That way I can be surprised only pleasantly

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

I have zero problems with sequels. I love 'em. And if these trailers are any indication, this will be a really great one! But then again, I don't tend to be very critical about movies at all, they are just movies after all. The way I see it, I love remakes, if someone doesn't want to see a sequel or remake, than... don't go see it. I am really hyped about this one. Looks amazing so far. I get the feeling I will like it better as the original tries to make you feel sorry for brutal murderers (replicants). Once they killed that innocent guy living in the abandoned apartments, all sympathy for me went out the window and I didn't feel at all sorry for the guy at the end.

I haven't seen the original although I've been meaning to for years. (I haven't been able to find a copy locally). How closely does Blade Runner follow 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'? I really enjoyed that book.

================================================= Paul whoknows: Why is this thread still open?Onewing: Because it is a pthread: a thread for me to pee on.

I get the feeling I will like it better as the original tries to make you feel sorry for brutal murderers (replicants). Once they killed that innocent guy living in the abandoned apartments, all sympathy for me went out the window and I didn't feel at all sorry for the guy at the end.

You're not supposed to feel sorry for them, you're supposed to just feel for them. It's empathy they're going for in the movie, not sympathy. It's a core motif of the movie and book. Personally, I've always had more empathy for computers and robots than for humans, which is probably one of the reasons I liked the original.

There's only so much they can do with a movie. Don't ever expect everything from a book to be in there.

Great story though. I have the original theatrical version on VHS tape (I love my VHS!) with the narration, that is my favourite. I doubt the new one will have narration like the original, but that's okay, it will be designed to work well without it I think. I know those trailers look awesome and I am curious about the story in this one, fascinates me.

I'm rarely ever very critical about movies though so that makes me easy to please. I am critical about real life; very flexible about movies.

There's only so much they can do with a movie. Don't ever expect everything from a book to be in there.

QTF, what works in a book usually doesn't work in movies and vice versa. While the purists would say that they completely ruined the book and went on tangent from the main theme, I think it's one of the best book adaptations ever made.

Speaking of which, I really should play it once more. Last time I saw it was maybe two years ago when they screened it at a local theater and part of that was a discussion with Terry Rawlings the guy who edited it.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

I always felt that adding in narration, like in the original, allows the movie to be more like a book at least. As you can hear the main character's thoughts. That was the charm of the original for me.

The Blade Runner game was actually very well done as well. I guess it has multiple endings, I only played through to the one, but there is an ending where he discovers he's a replicant as well I guess? I should boot it up again.

Speaking of which, I really should play it once more. Last time I saw it was maybe two years ago when they screened it at a local theater and part of that was a discussion with Terry Rawlings [www.imdb.com] the guy who edited it.

There's only so much they can do with a movie. Don't ever expect everything from a book to be in there.

I find that closer a movie tries to follow a book the more disappointment there is when the characters and situations fail to live up with what your mind has envisioned. I'm completely fine with Blade Runner loosely borrowing concepts from DADEoS because I think the core concepts were pretty cool to begin with.

================================================= Paul whoknows: Why is this thread still open?Onewing: Because it is a pthread: a thread for me to pee on.

For the original Blade Runner, what is the best version to watch? I see there is "Theatrical Cut", "Director's Cut" and "Final Cut". I suppose it wouldn't hurt to watch them all

I'd go with the Final or Director's cut (they are not that different) personally. The theatrical cut is the one with the voiceover and it has a different ending and meaning (although, right now the language fails me on using the right word). But as you put it, it doesn't hurt to see them all. I miss the theatrical cut, once I get my hands on it, I'm going to watch nevertheless I'm opposed to it (slightly).

Samuel Henderson said:

I'm completely fine with Blade Runner loosely borrowing concepts from DADEoS because I think the core concepts were pretty cool to begin with.

Yup, me too. The core is there and yet the film takes on the matter a different angle. And the visuals and the whole atmosphere are absolutely stunning. Right after the premiere, William Gibson threw away the version of Neuromancer he had and started writing again because of uncanny resemblance of his draft to the movie - nobody would believe he wrote that before the movie.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

THEATRICAL by far!!! It is the ORIGINAL that first came out in theaters, not the butchered one that is the "director's cut". And CUT is a good for for it as in the directors they CUT out the narration so you have long silent scenes, that used to have Harrison Ford talking, giving his thoughts which are important to know what is going on. And they cut out the original ending!!! The original ending you also hear his narration where you discover something important about the girl he is with that you will never know in the other butchered versions.

I still cannot fathom how anyone can stomach the butchered versions. It was on TV one day and I couldn't watch it. To me it was boring without the narration. I treasure my VHS version of it that is the original.

... they CUT out the narration so you have long silent scenes, that used to have Harrison Ford talking, giving his thoughts which are important to know what is going on.

Jeez, I had no idea. Thanks for pointing that out. I've only ever seen the director's cut (or some other version like that; apparently there are several).

In one of them, Deckard goes through the motions of removing an invisble Voight-Kampff machine from an empty briefcase. It might not have been noticeable on VHS, but in 1080p, it's quite obvious (and spoils the mood).

With matters like these, I find its often the version a person experiences first or has the fondest memories of becomes the "best". Even when we think we're being objective, we are really just finding ways to rationalize opinions we have already formed (and do not wish to change).

That makes absolutely no sense at all, as it was the original movie. You can't butcher the original my friend. The ones that came later on DVD where they removed the narration and they removed the ending, are the cuts... the "butchered" versions. Not the original.

With matters like these, I find its often the version a person experiences first or has the fondest memories of becomes the "best". Even when we think we're being objective, we are really just finding ways to rationalize opinions we have already formed (and do not wish to change).

I think many that like the butchered versions with the narration etc removed are all younger than I am. People that were born later than me and therefore seen the butchered versions first. So you may have a point. But no matter what, they are the butchered versions. You cannot butcher the original, it is the original. Versions that came out much later (in order to milk it for more money) removed narration, removed the ending etc. And the ending was especially good as it revealed a secret about the woman you cannot know without that ending and the narration. I'll reveal what it is below...

It revealed that unlike other replicants that had a 4 year limited lifespan, the woman he left with was special and had an unlimited lifespan like the rest of us. It revealed that the other cop that allowed her to go free and didn't kill her when he could have, did so because he figured she had that 4 year limited lifespan, so what was the point. Also with the narration you learn that Harrison Ford's character understood the gibberish language that the other cop was speaking, but he had it all translated just to make things harder on him. There's a lot revealed that you never know otherwise via the narration. It's like reading a book, you get the main character's thoughts which is important to the story.

Anyhow, had the narration been ADDED to the original, and the ending added on to the original, THEN you can accurately state the theatrical version is a butchered version. Otherwise, you cannot. The theatrical IS the original. So any cuts made to it, are the butchered versions. Period.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, as it was the original movie. You can't butcher the original my friend. The ones that came later on DVD where they removed the narration and they removed the ending, are the cuts... the "butchered" versions. Not the original.

I get and understand what you are saying, but I suppose it really matters how the theatrical version and director's cut versions differ. Consider the case of It's "A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" where the director's (Stanley Kramer's) original work was 197 minutes which had to be cut down to the general theatrical release of 159 minutes. I would argue in this case that the theatrical release is the butchering of the director's original work.

I find it odd that a director would decide to release a version that had less content than the original theatrical version (unless the Studio or Producer MADE him change it for the theatrical version).

================================================= Paul whoknows: Why is this thread still open?Onewing: Because it is a pthread: a thread for me to pee on.

I would argue in this case that the theatrical release is the butchering of the director's original work.

And I agree. Because something was removed. That's what a cut is. In this case, the director's cut removes the narration and the original ending. So it is the one doing the butchering with the original Blade Runner. It doesn't add anything, it takes away from it.

Now if someone prefers the Director's cut, hey, have at it. I hope you enjoy it, but it is the one that done the cutting/butchering, not the other way around.

Anyhow, had the narration been ADDED to the original, and the ending added on to the original

They were added, actually. The movie wasn't going to have neither of those, but was added at a late stage of the production because the producers wanted it, against the will of both Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott. That's why there's that saying that Ford did a bad interpretation in the happy ending on purpose hoping that way it wouldn't be used.

I loved how Ford done the narration for it. I don't believe he "purposely did a bad job" no matter what they say. I seen it, many times, and it isn't bad. And the ending isn't nessecarily a happy one. You don't know what happens to them. It's certainly more interesting and fills in some gaps, as does the narration. I'll never change my mind on this. I couldn't stomach the director's butchering job, I never watched it through, it sucks. TO ME anyhow. If you like it, have at it. I will never watch it all the way through. Ever.

Edit: Oh, and whatever the producers chose for the first release, IS THE ORIGINAL, like it or not. The director doesn't own the movie, the producers do.

That's what a cut is. In this case, the director's cut removes the narration and the original ending.

The studio insisted on adding the narration. It was not part of how the director wanted the movie. To me what it removes is the mood of the movie. It comes across as a the "Blade Runner for Dummies" edition.

edit:

Maybe it's the ex-writer in me. I believe in the "show, don't tell" idiom.

Anyhow, had the narration been ADDED to the original, and the ending added on to the original, THEN you can accurately state the theatrical version is a butchered version. Otherwise, you cannot. The theatrical IS the original. So any cuts made to it, are the butchered versions. Period.

They were added, actually. The movie wasn't going to have neither of those, but was added at a late stage of the production because the producers wanted it, against the will of both Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott. That's why there's that saying that Ford did a bad interpretation in the happy ending on purpose hoping that way it wouldn't be used.

Oscar was faster with this. The narration was added because producers thought the version cut by Terry Rawlings as Ridley Scott intended won't be understood by the audience so they insisited on the voice over that explains everything instead of the viewer having the option to use his own imagination. I, personally, like the ambiguous ending of the original cut and filling the gaps with my imagination. Still got to watch the Dangerous days documentary about how they shot the thing.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"